This topic contains 28 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Deathbal 8 years, 12 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #53833

    Rommel
    Participant

    From the McCain website

      “For the last 28 years, since Sen. McCain first ran for Congress, all of the sources of Sen. and Mrs. McCain’s income, and all of their assets, have been fully disclosed through publicly available financial disclosure forms filed with the United States Government. There is no new information on this tax return beyond the actual amount of Mrs. McCain’s income and taxes paid, because all other details of her personal and family sources of income and assets are already public.”

    According to The Huffington Post

      “In government records, McCain is permitted to describe his wife’s salary at Hensley as simply “more than $1,000” and, when listing her major assets, say only that they are worth “more than $1 million.”

      The reports show Cindy McCain has at least $9 million in assets on her own and at least $15 million with the McCain children. But those figures are virtually meaningless; her stake in Hensley & Co. alone almost certainly exceeds them by tens of millions of dollars.”

    and later in the same article –

      “Within the industry, as heiress to her father, she is widely assumed to own a majority of the company. If so, that would make her net worth at least $100 million, if industry estimates of Hensley’s value are accurate.”

    Enlightenment is the key.

    #53834

    Deathbal
    Participant

    In closing, I encourge all of you to educate yourselves about the tax structure of the country where you live. In the United States of America, a person that earns a living by sitting on a Yacht, sipping wine while their money works for them, pays less of a percentage in taxes than someone forced to earn their living working for the person that owns the yacht.

    Think about it,

    Yes, do educate yourself on the tax code.

    If you are going to play class warfare by describing a situation, you can at least say “why” what you described happens.

    The guy sitting on his yacht is rich, right? That is still allowed here in the USA, is it not? Whether he earned the money or inherited it, it is still his and no one elses.

    Now why does he pay less in taxes than someone making 100k a year while he brings in say……5 mil a year? Because since he probably doesn’t need a job, most of his income is categorized as “capital gains” or “Dividends tax”. These are taxed at %15.

    So Cindy McCain (and i’m just using your example) makes 6 mil and pays 25% tax. Top tax bracket is 35%. The reason she paid 25% is because much of it was taxed as capital gains and or other not “INCOME” related taxes.

    By playing class warfare all you end up doing is getting the little guy hurt. Eventually the capital gains tax will go up to spite the rich, and who gets hurt? Me. So when I go sell my house I am now taxed at a higher rate and the guy sitting on his yacht couldn’t give a rodents posterior that he has to pay more. But you sure showed those rich people.

    #53835

    Rommel
    Participant

    Hi Deathbal:

    I tried to find the old warming dish and the baby spoon but my ex-wife may have them. In any case, I’m a little rusty at spoon feeding, so please, try not to squirm around too much. It would be a shame if I accidentily poked you in the eye with this fork.@deathbal wrote:

    Yes, do educate yourself on the tax code.

    Eventually the capital gains tax will go up to spite the rich, and who gets hurt? Me. So when I go sell my house I am now taxed at a higher rate and the guy sitting on his yacht couldn’t give a rodents posterior that he has to pay more. But you sure showed those rich people.

    If you would have educated yourself, as I requested you would have learned that your home is most likely exempt from the capitol gains tax you mentioned.

    Steady lad, open wide.

    If you prefer to remain ignorant, that is fine with me, but misleading others, whether intentionally or due to ignorance, is not acceptable.

    That’s a good fellow, chew it well.

    If you sell your primary residence, after having owned it for as little as 2 years, you can make a very nice profit without owing any capital gains taxes, at all.

    It is so easy to get choked.

    If you would try to prove me wrong, I’d be very pleased as long as you use the tax code for your proof. Tax law, being a matter of public record, is something you can easily learn about on your own.

    That should be good, I think you can swallow now.

    If you have used your home as your primary residence for 2 years and you can find a buyer :

    You may earn up to $ 500,000 of non-taxable capitol gain (PROFIT) on the sale of your home if you are married and filing jointly.

    You can read this for yourself at the IRS website. Here is the link to the page on this topic :

    http://www.irs.gov/publications/p523/ar02.html#d0e2017

    Good luck selling your home and I hope that you have to pay capitol gains tax on the profit you make. I bet you hope you do too, now that you know the law.

    Best wishes,

    Rommel

    #53836

    Rommel
    Participant
    #53837

    Deathbal
    Participant

    I don’t know what state you live in, Rommel, but here in NJ 250k is a bag of shells when concerning house prices. And what about a 2nd house?

    At one point I had 2. One I rented and the other I lived in, that is before I sold it. Thankfully Bush lowered it from what it was. I think at one point it was at 28%. I would rent for ever before I paid that. I’m not Santa Clause.

    But my main point was that most wealthy people have their money taxed at capital gains rates, not as income. Here in the US we do not tax wealth the same way we tax income. So if a wealthy person makes 5 million at 15% and 500k at 35% (just an example) his overall tax % would be somewhere between 15-20%.

    So now if you do not like that system and raise those rates, you end up making it harder on those who are not wealthy to get wealthy.

    There is a segment of the population in the US that are concerned with the increasing wealth disparity between the haves and have nots. Their solution is what worries me. You don’t close the gap by truncating the top end, that doesn’t help the have nots. The ideal solution would be one that increases the opportunity for the lower end. This will never be achieved by taxing the rich and big business more and more. That is counter productive.

    #53838

    Rommel
    Participant

    Hi Again:

    @deathbal wrote:

    I don’t know what state you live in, Rommel, but here in NJ 250k is a bag of shells when concerning house prices. And what about a 2nd house?

    You apparently have a problem in understanding the term gain. Gain is the profit you receive if the amount you invested is smaller than the sale price.

    If you make a $ 250,000 profit in 2 years, that is not a sack of shells to most of us and that is what you are currently allowed to exempt from capitol gains taxation on the sale of your primary residence if you are single and the sole owner. If you own the property with someone else, then $ 500,000 is the maximum exclusion. There again, not a sack of shells to me.

    If you buy a $ 2,000,000 (2 million) home and keep it for 2 years, $ 500,000 profit seems a very nice return (25 percent) on your “investment” and it’s tax free. Not only that, you can buy another one just like it and repeat this process every two years. Most people could live comfortablly on an annual non-taxable income of $ 250,000 I suspect, especially considering that they are living in a $ 2,000,000 home.

    About the second house … there are loop holes for that. I gave you the link, use it.

    On second thought, if you don’t understand the difference between sale price and profit, then perhaps you should hire someone to look into that for you.

    Best wishes,

    Rommel

    #53839

    Deathbal
    Participant

    In a state where property values are high, so are the profits when you sell. That holds true unless property values start to drop like they have. Even now, after the drop in value, if I were to sell my house I would get a net profit of 240-260k. Before property values dropped, around 300k. And I only put 20% down on the house. This is the profit over a 6 year period. Now if you live in an area where property values are 100k, it is safe to assume that you will not see that type of profit. I don’t know why I am even explining this, you should already know it. And as far as any other loopholes, I obviously didn’t see them since I paid 15% on the sale of my 2nd house a few years back. The profit that is. Maybe I didn’t bother with any loophole because profit on that house was extremely low.

    But again, what diff. does it make? Again, my main point was the diff. between capital gains tax rate and the regular workers. The two you so vaguely explained in your example about the guy on the yacht.

    #53840

    Rommel
    Participant

    Back to the guy on the yacht then …

    Historical side note:

      It wasn’t the little guy that lost his head in the French Revolution.

    You appear to believe that the wealthy should pay a lower tax rate than the people in their employee. If that is the case, there is nothing further that I can say that would be constructive.

    Rommel

    #53841

    BOY
    Participant

    @bazzz wrote:

    DB where do you get your information,………

    As with any extreme talking points, they are based on too simple reasoning for me to see any value in them and only stand up to scrutiny due to the propaganda that talks to the peoples deepest fears.Scared people are easily controlled and there is no need for sound reasoning, the fear inhibits nuanced thoughts.

    Everyone is free to believe whatever they want, but please inform yourself about opposing viewpoints beyond the propagated talkingpoints.

    The problem is that the liberals are too warped in thier minds to get over thier hatred of other people’s success, they just have to tax tax tax it to death. This problem causes them not to be able to understand real solutions or truth if presented.

    Now, this does not prevent them from trying what they believe are simple solutions, such as tax “rebates” which are of course, ‘nice’ to the poor and helps them feel better about themselves.

    The simple truth is that rebates will do nothing to improve the success of people. You can give all the walmart debit cards that you want, it will not matter.

    #53832

    Deathbal
    Participant

    @rommel wrote:

    Back to the guy on the yacht then …

    Historical side note:

      It wasn’t the little guy that lost his head in the French Revolution.

    You appear to believe that the wealthy should pay a lower tax rate than the people in their employee. If that is the case, there is nothing further that I can say that would be constructive.

    Rommel

    The wealthy do not pay a lower federal income tax. But what do I know? Jobs are leaving the country, companies are laying off people, I guess the solution is to tax them more. So those on the unemployment line can take heart in knowing that guy on the yacht is paying his “fair” share. I put it in quotes to represent it’s new definition.

    #53842

    Rommel
    Participant

    Hi Deathbal:

    It appears that I erred in not properly phrasing my question as a question.

    Do you feel that someone that makes a living off of the labor of others should pay a lower percentage of Federal Income Tax than those in their employee?

    A simple yes or no will suffice for an answer. If you feel that further elaboration is due, then by all means, elaborate, but please do so after giving your answer.

    Best wishes,

    Rommel

    #53843

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    @rommel wrote:

    Do you feel that someone that makes a living off of the labor of others should pay a lower percentage of Federal Income Tax than those in their employee?

    theres a wider issue here, rom. i dont think we should be so ready to over-tax wealthy individuals. im no expert in economics, but it does seem the issues we’re facing now globally, are a result of national and international overspending. i.e. the world has been living beyond its means, and the value of money has dropped.

    suppose the richest people in the world decided to give each man woman and child in the united states a million dollars each. the economy would break down overnight, because no one would work. suddenly all that money would be worthless.

    seems to me that the key to taxation, is to tax people just enough so they dont get too wealthy in the first place, and avoid any and all state benefits that encourage people to avoid working at all.

    in any case, its very clear that your (americas) current political campaigns are based on nothing but propaganda and plots to discredit opposing parties. i wouldnt believe a word they say if i were you, regarding tax. even if theyre offering token gestures of ‘lower rates’, they certainly wont expect you (everyday voters) to understand the implications. its a sales pitch. dont buy into it.

    the bigger ethical issues are far more important, and more likely to affect americas failing international facade. (which is the crux of the current crisis, if you ask me) (not that you did : )

    #53844

    Deathbal
    Participant

    @rommel wrote:

    Hi Deathbal:

    It appears that I erred in not properly phrasing my question as a question.

    Do you feel that someone that makes a living off of the labor of others should pay a lower percentage of Federal Income Tax than those in their employee?

    No, and they don’t. Most of the rich people you mention do not have much income. They are taxed on wealth. Either capital gains or dividends. Both are taxed at 15%. If I were a multi millionaire i too would not work and have my money work for me. So i’d be taxed at 15%. The federal income tax brackets are a seperate issue.

    However I will say this. If it meant jobs would be kept in the USA instead of going over seas, then yes, i’d rather have the big business pay little or no taxes to stay here while their employees pay a higher percent.

    #53845

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    @deathbal wrote:

    No, and they don’t.

    i think they do and should. tax the wealthy too much and the currency will fail. thats what i was getting at above. i know its complicated : ) export, exchange rates. best not to go there.

    check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal).PNG

    you know, some people say capitalism is failing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism. people should read more wikipedia. in fact, im gonna go read more wikipedia

    #53846

    Deathbal
    Participant

    Economics 101: Companies do not pay taxes, they pass them on to you.

    At the Dunkin’ Donuts near to where I work I saw a sign posted. It said something to the effect that their new prices are a result of milk going up. The same holds true for taxes, but you won’t see that sign.

    Companies will maintain their profit margin. If that means raising prices or cutting the work force, they’ll do it. Prosperity starts at the top, not the bottom.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 30 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.